Instead of atoms, condensation was achieved using quasiparticles.

Bose-Einstein condensation is a dramatic phenomenon in which many particles act as though they were a single entity. The first Bose-Einstein condensate produced in the laboratory used rubidium atoms at very cold temperatures—work that was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in physics. Other materials, like superconductors, exhibit similar behavior through particle interactions.

These systems typically require temperatures near absolute zero. But Ayan Das and colleagues have now used a nanoscale wire to produce an excitation known as a polariton. These polaritons formed a Bose-Einstein condensate at room temperature, potentially opening up a new avenue for studying systems that otherwise require expensive cooling and trapping.

Bosons are part of a large class of particles that can have the same quantum configuration or state. This is in contrast to the fermions, the category including electrons, protons, and neutrons, which resist having the same state. (This resistance, known as the Pauli exclusion principle, leads to the presence of different energy states, or orbitals, occupied by the electrons of atoms.) At extremely low temperatures, bosons can coalesce into a single quantum system known as a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC), named for Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein.

Many atoms are bosons, though this characteristic doesn't generally make any difference except at high density or very low temperatures. However, thanks to the wonders of quantum physics, interactions within materials can produce quasiparticles. These are excitations that act like particles, but don't exist independent of the medium in which they occur.

As with normal particles, quasiparticles are either fermions or bosons, obeying the same general rules as their free cousins. For example, one widely accepted model for superconductivity describes the phenomenon as a Bose-Einstein condensation of quasiparticles formed by pairs of electrons. As with atomic BECs, quasiparticle BECs tend to form under very cold temperatures.

Another quasiparticle can be formed by the interactions between photons and excitations in a material. The resulting polaritons are low-mass bosons that should be able to condense at higher temperatures—possibly including room temperature. One signature of a polariton BEC is the production of coherent light—effectively, the quasiparticles act like a laser. Several experiments have created polariton BECs, though still at relatively cold temperatures.

The current study embedded a very thin wire—a nanowire—in a cavity designed to produce standing waves of microwave photons. The nanowire was an alloy of aluminum, gallium, and nitrogen, but with varying amounts of aluminum. The irregular composition created a de facto "trap" for the polaritons. A wire of uniform composition couldn't form a BEC—fluctuations within the material would destroy the condensation, even at low temperatures.

To bypass this, the researchers gradually decreased the amount of aluminum in the alloy to zero in the center of the nanowire, then bookended the aluminum-free segment with a region containing a relatively high amount of aluminum. The microwaves from the cavity interacted with the material, generating polaritons. These drifted preferentially along the wire toward the aluminum-free zone, where they collected and condensed.

In other words, the electronic properties of the material itself replaced the need for cooling, allowing the quasiparticles to gather and condense into a BEC. The experimenters confirmed this effect by detecting the telltale light emission.

This experiment marked the first room-temperature BEC ever observed in the laboratory. While the authors didn't suggest any practical application, the potential for studying BECs directly is obvious. Without the need for cryogenic temperatures or the sorts of optical and magnetic traps that accompany atomic BECs, many aspects of Bose-Einstein condensation can potentially be probed far less expensively than before.

I don't know why but whenever I read about quasi-particles and phonons it always feels like cheating a little bit. I understand there is something I am missing. I also understand this stuff is very difficult but it really feels like messing around with emergent properties trying to get a result you want.Of course I could just be stupid. I am always willing to admit that. Especially since there are no doubt people here who know a lot more than I do on this subject...or any subject really.

I don't understand how atoms can be bosons while electrons protons and nuetrons are not.

Is it simply atoms with net integer spin?

It is my understanding that what they are measuring is the electron that is passing through the crystal. As it passes it path is perturbed by different charged ions in the crystal. But its path behaves as if it were an electron of a different mass passing unperturbed.

So the obvious question is: Can this be made to apply to superconductors?

If indeed superconductivity is caused by quasi-particles made of two electrons turning into a BEC (which might be possible according to the article). Something normally done only at low temperatures, then it would seem to be experimentally possible to attempt the same thing with superconductivity as with light emission.

Of course success would tend to prove the theory of superconductivity correct, but failure would not prove one way or the other since it might simply be much more difficult to produce a similar effect for electron pairs. I have no idea, but the article at least makes the link which could imply this is the course to room temperature superconductivity.

I don't understand how atoms can be bosons while electrons protons and nuetrons are not.

Is it simply atoms with net integer spin?

A boson is any "particle" with an integer spin. As to distinguishing between particle, quasi-particle, virtual-particle, etc. you probably need at least a couple of courses in quantum mechanics and solid state physics.

I don't understand how atoms can be bosons while electrons protons and nuetrons are not.

Is it simply atoms with net integer spin?

A boson is any "particle" with an integer spin. As to distinguishing between particle, quasi-particle, virtual-particle, etc. you probably need at least a couple of courses in quantum mechanics and solid state physics.

Virtual Particle - Same quantum numbers (identity) of a fundamental (or composite [virtual pions, etc.]) particle, only with a different mass. It can only exist on time scales set by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Delta M (difference between it's mass and the mass it should have [on-shell mass])

Anti-Particle - Same quantum numbers (identity) of a fundamental, or composite particle, except for the charge quantum number, which is only different via a minus sign.

Quasi Particle - NOT an excitation of a fundamental field, or a collection of fundamental particles, but emergent behavior exhibited by an ensemble of such, usually confined to a "lattice" or periodic arrangement of composite particles. The moniker "particle" is helpful to describe this behavior as it usually manifests as localized excitations of the "lattice" with well defined and discrete quantum numbers based on similar (read: nearly identical) maths as Quantum Field Theory.

So the obvious question is: Can this be made to apply to superconductors?

If indeed superconductivity is caused by quasi-particles made of two electrons turning into a BEC (which might be possible according to the article). Something normally done only at low temperatures, then it would seem to be experimentally possible to attempt the same thing with superconductivity as with light emission.

Of course success would tend to prove the theory of superconductivity correct, but failure would not prove one way or the other since it might simply be much more difficult to produce a similar effect for electron pairs. I have no idea, but the article at least makes the link which could imply this is the course to room temperature superconductivity.

It would seem to me that this would be most beneficial to our quantum information and computing brethren. If the BEC is sufficiently stable, one could immagine a periodic aluminum doping to make a 1D array of BECs, assuming of course that they could be entangled with each-other and robust to thermal fluctuations. You could conceivably prepare the BEC state optically, with a laser, then read the state in a similar manner right?

@AffineParameter; this is exactly what I was thinking. In fact; back in the 1990's when I first read about BEC's I thought that their obvious application would someday be for quantum computing. (even if the laboratory setup seemed impractical - think about the steps we've taken from electromechanical relays to vacuum tubes to transistors to semiconductors. . . ). After the proof-of-concept, making it work is just an engineering problem

..."Without the need for cryogenic temperatures or the sorts of optical and magnetic traps that accompany atomic BECs, many aspects of Bose-Einstein condensation can potentially be probed far less expensively than before."

It's a matter of current research how an atom composed of fermions, can behave like a boson (or a proton composed of fermionic quarks, for that matter, behaves like one fermion). There are strong indications that entanglement is key.

The BEC state makes quantum teleportation between entangled particles possible. Everything in the universe should be pretty much entangled one way or the other because of the big bang. You could conceivably make a quantum computer with the help of the BEC state. You could download yourself into said quantum computer. You could teleport yourself anywhere(and anywhen?) instantaneously with a quantum computer. That's what I got outta that. I just read something about 85% fidelity though...so maybe you would just want to limit it to instantaneous communications and whatnot. Would you have to artificially entangle them for it to be exploitable?

So the obvious question is: Can this be made to apply to superconductors?

If indeed superconductivity is caused by quasi-particles made of two electrons turning into a BEC (which might be possible according to the article). Something normally done only at low temperatures, then it would seem to be experimentally possible to attempt the same thing with superconductivity as with light emission.

Of course success would tend to prove the theory of superconductivity correct, but failure would not prove one way or the other since it might simply be much more difficult to produce a similar effect for electron pairs. I have no idea, but the article at least makes the link which could imply this is the course to room temperature superconductivity.

Does Ars still have the definitions footnote box? I haven't seen it in awhile and think articles like this could benefit from it. Sure, I can always go do some quick research on topics like "Bose-Einstein Condensate" or "polariton" (I assume most ars readers could also do this if it is necessary), but having a quick definition within/near the article would prevent us from leaving the page and coming back.

"So the obvious question is: Can this be made to apply to superconductors?"

"So... what does this do to my processor speed?"

"You could conceivably make a quantum computer wither the help of the BEC state."

"Would I be wrong in guessing that this will make for some really fantastic small "prosumer"-quality speakers in the near future?"

"Pointing to field propulsion for spacecraft?"

"So the obvious question is: Can this be made to apply to superconductors?"

THE answer: Who knows right now. That's the beauty of pure science (and pure mathematics). A discovery lies around and waits for someone with the kind of imagination displayed here to identify a problem which the discovery solves.It's also the problem of pure research: we don't have the collective will to fund something which doesn't put bucks in our pocket NOW!

Argh, I wish I could understand the reasoning behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle better. I've tried reading up on the basis for the Spin-Statistics Theorem multiple times, but the details of how it emerges from the exchange interaction etc seem to be a bit beyond my math level.

The only high-level gloss (perhaps incorrect) that I have been able to get from it is that the reason why non-integral spin pushes fermions apart is a statistical effect caused by destructive interference of their wavefunctions when they get close. This would be due to the fact that the sign inversion caused by exchange for the antisymmetric wave functions of fermions gives differing signs for the overlapping wave functions, causing them to cancel out, leading to lower probabilities of being located in those areas.

Feynman himself said the spin-statistics theorem is so poorly understood at a deep intuitive level that he does not believe it is possible to explain it to a non-expert. It's just a technical result broadly supported by experiment, and no one really knows how to make it intuitive. Your explanation is as good as any, in this context.

The only high-level gloss (perhaps incorrect) that I have been able to get from it is that the reason why non-integral spin pushes fermions apart is a statistical effect caused by destructive interference of their wavefunctions when they get close.

I'm not a quantum physicist either, but the intuition I've had for this since I heard about it is re: boundary effects with other kinds of waves.If you're talking about sound in air, a few carefully-chosen ratios between "A" (the sound source) and "B" (a nearby wall) will exhibit standing-wave behavior, others will not.My guess is that the non-integral spin interactions are in a similar kind of resonance that just happens to push things back to what turns out to be a lower energy state anyway.

Feynman himself said the spin-statistics theorem is so poorly understood at a deep intuitive level that he does not believe it is possible to explain it to a non-expert. It's just a technical result broadly supported by experiment, and no one really knows how to make it intuitive. Your explanation is as good as any, in this context.

I've heard that quote, but that is a good reminder that success in this endeavor is likely to be elusive. "I know Feynman, and I ain't no Feynman." But hope springs eternal. I keep hoping someone can explain it to me.

the wire tech caught my attention a month ago. as the Indiana children have recently said "how does Higgs effect text" that is where were at a complete (forget everything U knew) rewrite. i'm not intertrested in theory, but only those that R actually accomplishing. and those that R able to educate. I'm not at any risk here none of those commenting would ever reveal who they R and the little moticons suggest how childish this place is. don't bother i delete myselfslayerwulfe cave

Argh, I wish I could understand the reasoning behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle better. I've tried reading up on the basis for the Spin-Statistics Theorem multiple times, but the details of how it emerges from the exchange interaction etc seem to be a bit beyond my math level.

The only high-level gloss (perhaps incorrect) that I have been able to get from it is that the reason why non-integral spin pushes fermions apart is a statistical effect caused by destructive interference of their wavefunctions when they get close. This would be due to the fact that the sign inversion caused by exchange for the antisymmetric wave functions of fermions gives differing signs for the overlapping wave functions, causing them to cancel out, leading to lower probabilities of being located in those areas.

Anyone know if that is even remotely correct?

This is not a useful starting point. A better starting point is (a) spinors represent pure DIRECTION without amplitude. This lack of amplitude is the key to the issue --- you can have something pointing in a direction, but without amplitude there is no way to encapsulate the idea of "more" pointing in the same direction. I described what this means (spinors as direction without amplitude) in an ars comment about a week ago.CONVERSELY(b) vectors (and scalars) do have amplitude, and so you can create a condensate (more of the stuff in the same state) by simply increasing the amplitude.

As the simplest possible mental model, compare - if I tell you the direction to the city center is 33 degrees east of north, I can't double or triple that direction, to give you "more" direction- if I tell you the direction plus distance to the city center is 33 degrees east of north and five miles, it's perfectly reasonable to say in the same direction but ten miles is the swimming pool, and in the same direction but fifteen miles is the library. Here I CAN retain some common part of the state (the direction) while I also have something independent (the distance) which I can double or triple or vary as I like.

Point is --- if you want to understand this stuff, your starting point should not be wave functions;. that will get you nowhere useful. Start by understanding(a) for electrons: what is a spinor (in geometric terms) and(b) for bosons: how Glauber functions work. Glauber functions are best initially understood in the context of the simple harmonic oscillator, but when you understand them there, you should think of them in the context of representing the amplitude of a sinusoidal electric field, and gradually increasing that amplitude.

Understanding these two different concepts from the geometric and algebraic angle is your best starting point. Sorry I don't have time to explain this in more detail, merely to give useful pointers.

Argh, I wish I could understand the reasoning behind the Pauli Exclusion Principle better. I've tried reading up on the basis for the Spin-Statistics Theorem multiple times, but the details of how it emerges from the exchange interaction etc seem to be a bit beyond my math level.

The only high-level gloss (perhaps incorrect) that I have been able to get from it is that the reason why non-integral spin pushes fermions apart is a statistical effect caused by destructive interference of their wavefunctions when they get close. This would be due to the fact that the sign inversion caused by exchange for the antisymmetric wave functions of fermions gives differing signs for the overlapping wave functions, causing them to cancel out, leading to lower probabilities of being located in those areas.

Anyone know if that is even remotely correct?

This is not a useful starting point. A better starting point is (a) spinors represent pure DIRECTION without amplitude. This lack of amplitude is the key to the issue --- you can have something pointing in a direction, but without amplitude there is no way to encapsulate the idea of "more" pointing in the same direction. I described what this means (spinors as direction without amplitude) in an ars comment about a week ago.CONVERSELY(b) vectors (and scalars) do have amplitude, and so you can create a condensate (more of the stuff in the same state) by simply increasing the amplitude.

As the simplest possible mental model, compare - if I tell you the direction to the city center is 33 degrees east of north, I can't double or triple that direction, to give you "more" direction- if I tell you the direction plus distance to the city center is 33 degrees east of north and five miles, it's perfectly reasonable to say in the same direction but ten miles is the swimming pool, and in the same direction but fifteen miles is the library. Here I CAN retain some common part of the state (the direction) while I also have something independent (the distance) which I can double or triple or vary as I like.

Point is --- if you want to understand this stuff, your starting point should not be wave functions;. that will get you nowhere useful. Start by understanding(a) for electrons: what is a spinor (in geometric terms) and(b) for bosons: how Glauber functions work. Glauber functions are best initially understood in the context of the simple harmonic oscillator, but when you understand them there, you should think of them in the context of representing the amplitude of a sinusoidal electric field, and gradually increasing that amplitude.

Understanding these two different concepts from the geometric and algebraic angle is your best starting point. Sorry I don't have time to explain this in more detail, merely to give useful pointers.

Thanks. I'll look more at spinors, something that I've been meaning to do for some time, since they seem to be pretty important.